The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Mangani
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

trayvon martin over george zimmerman, was more a cause of racism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Mangani
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,572 times Debate No: 35805
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

it goes against the media's portrayal, but it was martin who was guilty of racism, at least more guilty.

while being followed, martin told someone on his phone "... @$$ cracker" is following him.

zimmerman, while he was on the phone with the operator referred to martin and all the criminals in the area recently as "they". many think this means 'black'. but when the operator later asked race, zimmerman said he didn't know, and went through a few possibilities but said he didn't know. this means he probably wasnt referring to blacks, at least if he was honest, which we have no reason to question. probably 'they' means the criminals that have recently been ransacking the area.
Mangani

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for posting this debate... just as a show of courtesy.

I will try to be as brief as my opponent with my arguments, and rebuttals.

First, we should define racism. Racism is a belief, or doctrine that differences among the races are responsible for achievement, failure, superiority, and inferiority, among other factors. Hatred or intolerance without action is bigotry.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

My opponent states that Trayvon Martin was "more guilty" of racism than George Zimmerman. As evidence of this racism, my opponent brings up the fact that Trayvon referred to the armed adult who was watching him as a "creepy [DDO won't permit]."

In response to this, I will address the intent in Martin's identification of Zimmerman as a "creepy [DDO won't permit]" as well as the culture Trayvon Martin was raised in, which is not dictated by members of his own race.

Martin's intent, according to Rachel Jeantel, was to identify the individual he assumed posed a danger to him. This assumption, in the end, proved to be correct. Trayvon Martin's actions after identifying this adult was to run. He ran because he was afraid.

As far as culture Martin was raised in the State of Florida where the term "[DDO won't permit]" is used by whites as a historical identification of cowboys who originally settled in the region.
http://www.crackercountry.org...

Even a juror from the trial agrees that his use of the term was cultural, and not racial in nature.
http://www.miamiherald.com...

In conclusion with regard to Martin's alleged words and actions- Trayvon Martin did not exhibit racism, let alone "more" racism than George Zimmerman. His words were not racist in nature, and neither were his actions.

Zimmerman, no the other hand, racially profiled Trayvon Martin by his own admission. My opponent does the same thing when he says: " while he was on the phone with the operator referred to martin and all the criminals in the area recently as "they."

Trayvon Martin was not a criminal, yet he was identified as one. Why? Because he wore a hoodie? Because he walked around in the rain? Because he looked suspicious? What about him was suspicious? According to Zimmerman, it was suspicious that he was walking around in the rain nonchalantly. We now know he was not walking nonchalantly, rather cautiously... watching out for this "creepy [DDO won't permit]" who was watching him for no good reason.

These are the facts:
1- Trayvon Martin was a child. He had just turned 17 weeks prior to being killed.
2- TM was not committing any crimes the night he was shot.
3- TM had every right to go to 7/11, and come right back home as he intended.
4- TM was being watched and followed by an unknown adult from the moment he walked into the community.
5- TM was afraid that he was being watched.
6- TM was not acting suspicious- he was walking home while talking on the phone with a girl.
7- TM was not high. There was 1/50th the amount of THC metabolites in his system required to achieve a positive. This implies he was not a regular smoker, and may have smoked once within the past month, but it would have been impossible for him to have been under the influence that night.
8- Zimmerman profiled Martin.
9- Zimmerman identified Martin as a black teen.
10- Zimmerman said "these [DDO won't permit] always get away" in reference to a previous call where a young black man burglarized a home and got away.
11- Trayvon Martin was not one of those burglars.
12- Zimmerman said Martin was high on drugs.
13- Zimmerman expressed fear of Martin as he approached his vehicle.
14- Zimmerman pursued Martin after he ran.
15- Zimmerman found, shot, and killed Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman's actions began with an unjust identification of Martin as a criminal under the influence of drugs who may want to rob a house in the neighborhood. This did not occur because he was high- he wasn't. This did not occur because he was acting suspicious- he wasn't. This did not occur because he was one of "these little [DDO won't permit]" who "always get away"- he wasn't. This incident occurred simply because Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, was angry that previous young black men had gotten away with crimes, and he felt he needed to get more deeply involved.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

cracker may have a historical usage referring to cowboy types, but nothing about the context made that appear to be the case... martin was being followed and martin was angry, and it's not uncommon phrase that blacks use perjoratively for nonblacks. which fits best? the racist usage. does the witness you cite have much credibility to say what she thought it meant? no, that was martin's friend who most agree seemed to be stretching things for martin.

con argues zimmerman racially profiled martin because his alleged erratic behavior and hoodie. are those traits exclusive to blacks? no. are they associated? arguably, but that's more the preconceived notion of the person who wants to argue than what necessarily more likely than not was the case. there are lots of whites who act erratic and wear hoodies.

con also argues about of facts about martin, in his list, that don't have anything to do with the issue of race, the point of the debate.

these are actually quite a ridiculous arguments by con.
Mangani

Con

"cracker may have a historical usage referring to cowboy types, but nothing about the context made that appear to be the case"

My opponent makes this claim, yet refuses to acknowledge the evidence. The context is the state of Florida, where the term is in fact used culturally. One of the jurors, all of which, save for one, was white, agreed Martin's usage of the term was not racist, rather cultural. I have provided sources supporting my arguments. My opponent simply insists his point of view is correct.

" martin was being followed and martin was angry"

Again, my opponent makes claims that are not consistent with the evidence. Even by George Zimmerman's account, Trayvon Martin ran. He was a child being followed by an unknown adult- he was scared. He thought Zimmerman was "creepy."

"con argues zimmerman racially profiled martin because his alleged erratic behavior and hoodie. are those traits exclusive to blacks?"

Here, my opponent attempts to manipulate your understanding of my argument. Trayvon Martin did not, in fact, exhibit erratic behavior- we now know that as a fact. He was not under the influence, and he was not taking part in any criminal activity. He was heading home. The erratic behavior was that of George Zimmerman who claimed Trayvon Martin was suspicious, on drugs, and one of the "little a-holes" who "always get away."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"there are lots of whites who act erratic and wear hoodies"

Here, my opponent supports my argument. There are lots of whites who act erratic, and wear hoodies. Even so, Zimmerman did not find any erratic acting individuals that night. He racially profiled a young man who matched the description of criminals who had previously gotten away. White kids weren't breaking into homes, so he was not looking for erratic white kids in hoodies. He was looking out for young black men- the demographic Zimmerman felt was responsible for criminal activity in his neighborhood.

Pro claims my arguments are ridiculous, but provides no rational rebuttal to the evidence I've provided. For evidence by association, let's examine some of the comments made by the Zimmerman family, and their friends:

Tweet by Robert Zimmerman: Lib media shld ask if what these2 black teens did 2 a woman&baby is the reason ppl think blacks mightB risky

Tweet by Robert Zimmerman: POTUS spoke of his Mom acting like a "typical" white woman when encountering blacks. The fate of Sherry West might B why.

Robert Zimmerman was comparing Trayvon Martin to two black teens who killed a woman and her baby. Trayvon Martin was not a criminal, nor was he engaging in criminal activity. The only comparison that can be made is he was a black teen. Robert Zimmerman is George's younger brother. It is pretty evident that racism is part of the family culture.

Robert Zimmerman, Sr. says in his book that the Congressional Black Caucus is a "pathetic, self-serving group of racists" advancing their purely racist agenda." The Congressional Black Caucus, first of all, is a very small caucus. There are members who were civil rights leaders, and they do push a pro-minority agenda. To say they are racist, however, is a complete stretch as none of the evidence supports this notion. RZSr. here exhibits the classical claim of reverse racism when attempting to defend oneself from accusations of racism.

He also claims that the NAACP "simply promotes racism and hatred for their own, primarily finical [sic], interests" and that "without prejudice and racial divide, the NAACP would simply cease to exist." Ironically, the last statement is true- without prejudice and racial divide, the NAACP would simply cease to exist. The NAACP was formed as a response to prejudice and racial divide, and works to end it... so ending it would ensure the organization cease's to exist, at least in theory.

Zimmerman even goes on to claim that the FBI investigation into Martin's killing somehow led to negligence regarding the Boston Marathon Bombing.

Frank Taaffe, Zimmerman's fried, and one of his most vocal supporters during the trial, claimed on CNN that "the neighborhood went down after blacks moved in."

Frank Taaffe, again on CNN, says to Soledad O'Brien "Yes, it's a neighbor-Hood... there were 8 burglaries in the 15 months prior to Trayvon getting shot, all perpetrated by young black males." While this may be true, it is apparent that this is an attempt to justify the racial profiling of Trayvon Martin as he, too, was a young black male.

O'Brien asks Frank Taaffe: "It sounds like it makes sense to you that George Zimmerman would be fearful of young black men" to which Taaffe respoonds "No, it would be consistent that the perpetrators were all of the young black male...id. That's a fact."

He goes on to say "It was a perfect storm. It was evident all the prior burglaries were perpetrated by young black males... it was a tragedy that a weapon was used in violence, but it was a perfect storm."

What perfect storm?? Trayvon Martin was not a burglar. He was not high. He was not a criminal. He was a young black male.

The Neighborhood Watch in Zimmerman's community was formed as a response to these burglaries. Every person Zimmerman had previously called the police on was a young black male. The only association Trayvon Martin had with any of these burglars, or other criminals in the area was the color of his skin. This is why he was watched by Zimmerman. This is why he was followed, and this is why he was confronted. Had Zimmerman not racially profiled Trayvon Martin, Martin would still be alive. There is nothing Martin could have done with regard to any actions related to race that would have ensured he would still be alive.

#at=468
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

yes a juror attributed it to a culture thing, but it was not the cracka reference to olden days like con argues. she said it was just the way people talked. i would suppose it's like if someone says "creepy nigga" is followin me, and the nigga is a more generic hood talk, not offensive.
even if this is the case, it doesn't mean it wasn't racist, and it is more racist than anything zimmerman said.

martin was angry, angry zimmerman was following him. perhaps con is reading too much into this statement. i'm not trying to make it out to be that it was martin who was hot headed instigator etc. either way, thjis point doesn't mean much as to race, other than to say martin was 'upset' which was my only point to begin with, and adds some evidence cracka was mroe negative than con insists.

i tend to trust that zimemrman thought it was erratic behavior. even if i'm wrong is not much basis to con's argument. con said zimmerman is racist cause hte thought the behavior was erratic. i just showed that thinking that doesn't ahve to do with race. if he didn't think that, it still has nothing to do with race. all con has is a hoodie poinnt, but again, that's more the preconceived notion of the person arguing it that it's about race. it's actually more racist for the person to think it has to do with hoodies, that person is the one who is clearly making assumptions.

con just assumes zimmerman was out looking for black men. he must be saying that if there's nothing to make it racial, why would he go after them? therefore it must be the thing that is racial, that we must assume it was about being black. it's actually not far fetched to be skeptical of someone in a hoodie waliking strange places, or anywhere. this isn't racial though.

if zimmerman's brother thought it was similar to the people killed, con hasn't shown that the brother thought it had to do with race. only that it was similar. con is the one instering something that is not thtere, yet again. even if the brother thought whatever, it doesn't necessarily have to do with what zimmerman himself thought. the black caucus thing might be racial, but it might just be him noticing that blacks do and say a lot that whites could never do, per race. and again this isnt zimmerman's thought necessarily.

even if zimmerman's family thought blacks brought the area down, it might actually be the case in that situatio. objectively, that can sometimes be estalished, crime, or wahtever. perhaps profiling here could be called racist, but it's really just facing facts. it's an unfortunate thing. and again there's not enough evidence to make it be that zimmerman himself acted out of racial elements.
Mangani

Con

"yes a juror attributed it to a culture thing, but it was not the cracka reference to olden days like con argues"

This isn't, in fact, what I have argued. These are two separate points. A- The use of the word "cracka" is a cultural term taught to Florida youth by members outside their race. And B- The word "cracka" in the state of Florida is viewed as a source of cultural pride for many whites.

To contrast my opponent's argument about the word "nigga," those who use that word in a derogatory manner taught the word to all others. The word is not a source of cultural pride, nor are it's origins benevolent in nature. It is both repulsive, and irrational to make a direct comparison between the two terms.

"even if this is the case, it doesn't mean it wasn't racist, and it is more racist than anything zimmerman said."

My opponent ignores that "saying" racist things does not necessarily contribute to a situation involving race. Martin's comments had no effect on Zimmerman, or the situation. It was Zimmerman's actions- his profiling of Trayvon Martin as a young black male who fit the description of those responsible for 8 burglaries prior to the incident; his claim that Martin was on drugs; his claim that Martin was acting suspicious; his claim that Martin was one of these little "a$$ holes" who always get away; his unjustified pursuit of Trayvon Martin, and eventual confrontation- all of these things are what precipitated the situation, not Martin's words or actions. Trayvon Martin was completely innocent, though my opponent would have you believe otherwise.

"martin was angry, angry zimmerman was following him"

There is absolutely no evidence being offered by my opponent to suggest Martin was angry. He was not angry- he was scared. He ran. He didn't describe his pursuer as someone he would want to confront and fight- he identified him as creepy, and ran. My opponent's claim is pure contrivance.

"i'm not trying to make it out to be that it was martin who was hot headed instigator"

My opponent fails to realize he has just contradicted his entire position. The title of the debate reads "Trayvon Martin, over George Zimmerman, was more a cause of racism." He goes on to say in his first argument that Martin was "more guilty" of racism than Zimmerman was. So at one point in this debate, my opponent has acknowledged Zimmerman's racism. With this statement here, he admits Martin was not the instigator. These two facts completely contradict Pro. Zimmerman was the racist instigator of the incident resulting in Trayvon Martin's death, by my opponent's own arguments.

"martin was 'upset' which was my only point to begin with"

My opponent has offered no evidence showing Martin was upset, nor that his being so would have contributed to the incident. He was watched by an armed adult, pursued, and killed. If he was suspicious of being watched by a man he deemed creepy, ran, and got into an altercation with him- none of his actions exhibit racism, and much less "more" racism than Zimmerman's profiling, pursuit, and murder.

"cracka was mroe negative than con insists."

The amount of negativity perceived by the jury in the use of the word "cracka," and the way the person who heard it is what matters most. Martin's use of the term did not affect Zimmerman, nor did it precipitate the incident by my opponent's own admission. My opponent's argument is, essentially, that what Martin was thinking in his head while being watched is somehow more racist than the actions Zimmerman took which resulted in Martin's death. He has not proven this at all, and, in fact, has repeatedly supported aspects of my argument while contradicting aspects of his own.

"i tend to trust that zimemrman thought it was erratic behavior"

The facts are Trayvon Martin's behavior was not erratic, and much more- not criminal. What Zimmerman thought is only relevant in so far as one may try to determine his own state of mind. What Zimmerman thought about Martin, in the end, had nothing to do with Trayvon Martin at all. I have already proven this- there is nothing erratic, or suspicious about a 17 year old boy walking home from 7/11 in the rain while talking on the phone to a girl. We know for a fact this is all Martin was doing.

"i just showed that thinking that doesn't ahve to do with race"

My opponent makes claims of evidence that he has not shown. He did nothing at all to show that Zimmerman's assumption had nothing to do with race. Zimmerman's own words confirm it had everything to do with race. The phone call to the police started with "We've had a few break ins in the area." This was in reference to the 8 burglaries that had been perpetrated by young black males... at least allegedly. This is further confirmed by the later statement, "These a$$ holes always get away" in reference to a previous call he made where he watched a young black male stake out a house that was later robbed, but no one was caught. Frank Taaffe, Robert Zimmerman, Jr., and Robert Zimmerman, Sr. have all confirmed through various statements that Trayvon Martin was profiled because he was a young black male.

"con just assumes zimmerman was out looking for black men"

I have made no assumptions. I've pointed to evidence. Here is some evidence:
- George Zimmerman called the Sanford PD in late 2011 to request a Neigborhood Watch program be set up in his community in response to a string of burglaries.
- According to Wendy Dorival, the Neighborhood Watch Coordinator for the Sanford PD, NW members are encouraged to not confront suspicious persons, and carrying a gun is out of the question.
- On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman called police to report a young black man looking into a home in his community. By the time police arrived, the suspect had fled.
- A young man was arrested on February 6, 2012 with a laptop that had been stolen from a home. Zimmerman identified this young man as the same one he watched on February 2.
- There were 8 burglaries in the neighborhood prior to the shooting.
- Trayvon Martin was not acting suspcious. He was walking home from the store.
- Trayvon Martin was not under the influence.
- Trayvon Martin was not "up to no good," as Zimmerman suggests in his call to Sanford PD.

Given all these facts it becomes evident that Zimmerman pursued Martin because he was a young black male, as there is no other rational justification for his pursuit other than he fit the profile of suspects in previous crimes. This point has already been conceded by my opponent. In his Round 1 argument he states: "referred to martin and all the criminals in the area recently as "they". many think this means 'black'"

My opponent does not clarify how Martin is like the suspects in the previous crimes. He denies the link has to do with race, but provides no other reason to lump Trayvon Martin with "they," which he refers to as "Martin and all the criminals in the area recently." How was Martin like the criminals if he was not a criminal?

My opponent has completely failed to make his point. The burden of proof was on my opponent to show that Martin's words and/or actions were both racist, AND somehow contributed to the incident. My opponent claims Martin's words were racist, but he does not show how Martin's words or actions led to his pursuit and murder. My opponent admits Zimmerman exhibited some degree of racism. He admits Zimmerman was the instigator, and he admits Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.

My opponent has no case, and I urge you to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
It is a very interesting question to ponder.
Posted by PiningForASilverLining 3 years ago
PiningForASilverLining
In general, I think the race issue in this case is not as much about how GZ and TM perceive each other as it is how the nation perceives the jury's (mostly white) perception of the case. The liberal and more minority-accepting/sympathizing side of the nation sees the case verdict reverse had it been a lighter skinned kid killed (white or latino) and a darker skinned man behind the gun

The other huge issue is just the law itself, which seems to allow anyone involved in a fight, scuffle, or bruhaha to whip out a gun and waste the other person as long as they "feel they are in mortal danger" which is extremely subjective
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
I suppose I should vote on at least ONE debate on this topic, lol.

1) CON: "He racially profiled a young man who matched the description of criminals who had previously gotten away."

That's a really strong statement. The fact is that TM fit the description of the suspected burglar, he was black. Racial profiling is too strong a term given the evidence.

2) A lot of CON's "facts" are unfortunately not substantiable, such as "TM was not acting suspicious- he was walking home while talking on the phone with a girl." We don't know if he was or wasn't acting suspicious...all we have is Z's word on it. Yes, we know that TM's toxicology report had negligible signs of pot, but that alone does not substantiate that he wasn't acting erratically...it just doesn't necessitate him acting erratically.

3) Robert Z's tweets are unsourced, nor are any other claims made by CON. Will not consider.

4) I did not read CON's closing.

---

CONCLUSION

This was not a very good debate. Much of what CON brought in as "fact" or evidence was simply not substantiated and was overall of very poor quality. This is coming from someone who's engaged in this topic quite a bit over the past 2 weeks. Here's a fact list (admittedly it is not sourced either, but it's a product of prior discussions which were heavily sourced):

http://www.debate.org...

Much of the debate revolved around Zimmerman's actions and what his family said, which is irrelevant to the resolution. Even PRO's short and uninformative rounds dwelt mainly on Zimmerman. He does not substantially rebut CON's sourced assertions that "cracka" is just a cultural term, not a racial term. For this, he fails to meet BoP, so arguments CON. S&G to CON as well, spelling became an impediment to understanding PRO's arguments.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
@Ragnar

Zimmerman said "these @ssholes, they always get away" and "fvcking punks" under his breath. Some people think he said "fvcking coons" but if you listen to it, it sounds like "punks". I really don't think Zimmerman was racist.

Call and transcript are in the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I haven't listened to any of the recordings, but we have Martin using racist profanity, did Zimmerman lose his temper enough to use any profanity?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
dairygirl4u2cManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented a very clean and straightforward case to follow, and refuted well by pointing out such things as distracting us with a lot of unrelated claims and pathos appeals (HE WAS A CHILD!), plus challenging sources (such as definition of crackers). From con: "In conclusion with regard to Martin's alleged words and actions- Trayvon Martin did not exhibit racism... His words were not racist in nature" This boils down to the subjective nature of a racial slur that is further degraded by adding sexuality to it. I personally find it offensive. Later con begins quoting other people with the same last name as Zimmerman, greatly clouding the issue in question (my mom is a neo nazi, that has nothing to do with me). I do fully agree that racial profiling was involved, yet I fail to see how such is racism. If it were albinos breaking into homes, albinos would be watched more closely; bleach blond whites, the same thing. That race exists, does not mean all actions based on such are racist.
Vote Placed by Chapule 3 years ago
Chapule
dairygirl4u2cManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: arguments to con because he was just a better debater. Pro argued with opinions while con attacked his points directly.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
dairygirl4u2cManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. Try to stay on topic, PRO.